Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 15 references

This review argues that cosmic dust is porous and fluffy rather than compact, and that adopting porous grain models would reshape understanding of interstellar chemistry, planet formation, and water delivery.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 17:59 UTC pith:V56MWRHD

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful review whose central narrative overshoots its evidence, and whose own cited MIMICK results undercut the thin-ice story. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.10292 v1 pith:V56MWRHD submitted 2025-09-12 astro-ph.GA

Is cosmic dust porous?

Alexey Potapov , Martin R. S. McCoustra , Ryo Tazaki , Edwin A. Bergin , Stefan T. Bromley , Robin T. Garrod , Albert Rimola This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic dustdust porosityfractal aggregatesastrochemistryice mantlesprotoplanetary disksinterstellar mediumgrain growth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that cosmic dust grains are not compact solid spheres but porous, fractal aggregates with large internal surface area, thin ice coatings, and exposed grain surfaces in many astrophysical environments. It synthesizes laboratory experiments, grain-growth simulations, and astronomical observations from the interstellar medium through protoplanetary and debris disks to the Solar System, and claims these point to a clear trend: porosity increases as dust evolves into denser, more processed environments. If true, standard dust models—compact refractory core with a thick ice mantle—would need to be replaced, and the role of dust surfaces in astrochemistry, planetesimal formation, and water delivery would become far more central. The paper also warns that the observational evidence is more ambiguous than the laboratory and modeling evidence, and that porosity is often degenerate with other dust parameters. Overall, the sympathetic reading is that the paper makes the case that porosity should be a standard default in dust models, not an exotic option.

Core claim

The paper's central assertion, stated in its conclusions, is that integrating observations from the ISM through protoplanetary disks to debris disks and the Solar System reveals a logical trend which, together with experimental and modeling results, draws a clear picture of increasing porosity in increasingly evolved environments. If the paper is right, standard dust models (compact refractory core with a thick ice mantle) should be replaced by porous, fractal aggregate models with large accessible surface area, thin ices, and trapping/catalytic chemistry in most astrophysical environments. The review clarifies two sources of porosity—intrinsic porosity in the material itself and extrinsic p

What carries the argument

The central objects are porous/fractal dust grains, defined by a high void fraction (porosity) and often a fractal dimension gamma < 3, with two sources of porosity: intrinsic (material texture) and extrinsic (agglomerate morphology). The review uses the Rayleigh–Gans–Debye approximation to show that in porous aggregates large enough to be optically large, absorption, scattering, and polarization are governed by the constituent monomers rather than by the bulk aggregate size, which explains why fluffy grains can masquerade as small particles spectroscopically. This optical framework, combined with laboratory aggregation experiments, atomistic models of mesoporous and microporous silicates, a

Load-bearing premise

The porous structure must remain open and chemically accessible long enough for the astrochemical effects to matter; the paper's own ice-growth simulations show mantles filling and sealing pores within roughly 10^4-10^5 years, and its annealing experiments cut porosity from about 90% to 40% by 900 degrees Celsius.

What would settle it

Measure the internal surface area of a realistic porous silicate aggregate after depositing a realistic icy mantle at 10-20 K for a simulated 10^4-10^5 years; if the accessible area collapses to that of a compact grain before the chemistry of interest completes, the central astrochemical consequences of porosity would not hold.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Standard compact-core-plus-thick-ice models would be replaced by porous fractal aggregates with large internal surface area and thin, often sub-monolayer, ice coatings in cold dense environments.
  • Astrochemical rate networks must include surface area, pore trapping, and shielding; porous grains may retain volatile species like H2 beyond their normal desorption temperatures, altering ice composition and gas-grain exchange.
  • Spectroscopic and polarimetric diagnostics of porous aggregates are governed by monomer properties rather than bulk size, so ignoring porosity biases inferred grain sizes, compositions, disk masses, and dust temperatures.
  • The trend of increasing porosity from diffuse ISM to dense clouds to disks and planetary systems implies that planetesimal formation proceeds through fluffy aggregation, changing models of collisional growth and planet formation.
  • Strongly bound water trapped in micropores can survive above the canonical snowline temperature, with implications for the water content of rocky planets like Earth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If pore connectivity is low, the dominant astrochemical effect of porosity may be trapping and shielding of volatiles rather than enhanced catalytic surface chemistry; distinguishing these two regimes requires measuring pore connectivity, not just porosity.
  • A direct observational test would be to search for trapped H2 or other volatiles in ice mantles using JWST band profiles: sharp trapped volatile signatures would support sealed pores, while their absence would support open, chemically active pores.
  • Applied to exoplanet atmospheres, the same porous-grain picture predicts that cloud structure, opacity, and spectral features depend on porosity and monomer size—this is noted only briefly in the paper and remains a testable extension.
  • If the porosity trend is real, dust mass estimates based on compact-grain opacities may be systematically biased in evolved environments, with knock-on effects on gas/dust mass ratios and disk evolution models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This review-style paper asks whether cosmic dust should be regarded as porous/fractal rather than as compact refractory cores with thick ice mantles. It develops a qualitative account of how porosity changes absorption, emission, scattering, and polarization; surveys observational constraints from the Solar System, the diffuse and dense ISM, protoplanetary disks, and debris disks; reviews laboratory and computational evidence for porous grain growth; and discusses astrochemical consequences such as thin ice films, accessible bare surfaces, and trapping of volatiles. The authors conclude that integrating observations across environments reveals a 'logical trend' of increasing porosity from the diffuse ISM through disks to the Solar System, and that porous, fractal dust models are needed for future astrochemical and planet-formation studies.

Significance. If the central claim were firmly established, this would be a consequential review: it would motivate replacing compact-core/thick-ice dust models with porous aggregates in astrochemical and disk-evolution studies, and it highlights concrete laboratory and observational avenues. The paper's strengths are its broad synthesis, its careful qualitative discussion of optical effects (Section 2), and its repeated acknowledgment of degeneracies and counter-examples (e.g., Ysard et al. 2019; HR 4796A low porosity; diffuse-ISM polarization limits). It also gives credit to the relevant numerical and experimental literature, and the cross-section/phase-function exposition is pedagogically useful. However, the review stops short of demonstrating the central claim quantitatively; several load-bearing points rely on the authors' own prior work, and, as detailed below, at least one internal inconsistency in the astrochemical argument needs to be resolved before the conclusions can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.5, Fig. 23; Abstract; §1.4; §5.2.2] The paper's own MIMICK simulations (Christianson & Garrod 2021) show that, within 10^4–10^5 yr, growing ice mantles fill and close over the pore structure, and that 'the porous structure was lost and the grain took on a regular and roughly spherical morphology.' The same simulations found no substantial difference in overall ice composition or H2 production between porous and non-porous grains. Yet the Abstract, §1.4, and §5.2.2 argue that porosity leads to 'much thinner ice films and higher accessibility to the bare grain surface' and propose a catalytic role for dust in cold dense environments. This is a direct internal tension: if pores are sealed on timescales short compared with dense-cloud lifetimes, the bare-surface and thin-ice consequences used to motivate porosity are not guaranteed. Section 5.1.2 acknowledges limitations, but the conclusions nevertheless list accessible bare s
  2. [§3.2–§3.3 and §6] The concluding claim of a 'clear picture of increasing porosity in increasingly evolved environments' is stronger than the observational evidence presented. The diffuse ISM section notes that models with little or no porosity fit the data (Ysard et al. 2019) and that polarization limits porosity to ≤0.75 (Draine & Hensley 2021); the debris-disk section reports low porosity for HR 4796A and mixed results for β Pic; in protoplanetary disks, HD 163296 is better fit by 25% porosity than 80% (Guidi et al. 2022) and several constraints are mutually inconsistent depending on wavelength and method. The observed scatter is at least as consistent with environment-dependent porosity and strong model degeneracy as with a monotonic evolutionary trend. Please either state the trend as a hypothesis with explicit caveats and a quantitative synthesis of the compiled values, or soften the conclusion accor
  3. [§2.2 and §3.3.1] Many of the observational porosity values quoted in Section 3.3.1 come from Mie theory with effective-medium approximations (e.g., Pinte et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2023; Ueda et al. 2024). The paper itself notes that EMA can significantly misestimate scattering properties for fractal aggregates with γ∼2 (Tazaki et al. 2016) and that non-spherical effects can mimic porosity (§3.3.1, discussion of spheroids). Given these caveats, the individual porosity estimates should be presented with a clear statement of their method-dependence. As written, the review sometimes moves from 'model X fits with porosity p' to 'porosity is p' without propagating the methodological uncertainty. This is load-bearing because the 'logical trend' in §6 rests on combining estimates obtained with different methods (EMA, DDA, T-matrix, DHS) that are not directly comparable.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.3.2, Fig. 12 caption] The caption contains stray text '/glyph1197' in 'HR 4796A /glyph1197'; please remove.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 7 caption] Typo: 'funcition' should be 'function'.
  3. [§4.4.3] Typo: 'fetaures' should be 'features'.
  4. [§4.1] The cross-reference 'see Sect. 3.3' for Table 1 is incorrect; Table 1 appears in §4.3. Please update the reference.
  5. [§5.3] The text refers to 'mentioned in section 3.4.3', but the relevant discussion of microporous silicates and binding energies is in §4.4.3. Please correct the cross-reference.
  6. [§5.2.1] 'Dispersion ... as given by equation 3' is ambiguous; the displayed equation is numbered (14). Please add consistent equation numbering.
  7. [Table 1] Typo: 'Fullerences' should be 'Fullerenes'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a synthesis of independent laboratory, observational, and modeling results; self-citations are not definitionally load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review paper, not a first-principles derivation, and its central claim—that cosmic dust porosity increases with environmental evolution—is an interpretive synthesis of many independent lines of evidence. The paper does not define a predicted quantity in terms of a fitted parameter, and no equation reduces to an input by construction. Section 1.4 presents the Potapov et al. (2020) porous-grain model, and Section 5.2.2 cites the same work for the thin-ice consequence; although this is a self-citation, the underlying result is a laboratory experiment on surface area and ice coverage that is externally falsifiable and not fitted to the review's conclusion, so it does not meet the standard for load-bearing circularity. The Tazaki et al. (2023b) IM Lup fit, the Zhang et al. (2023) HL Tau porosity range, and the Ueda et al. (2024) dust-evolution fit are presented as fits to observations, not as predictions derived from the porosity premise. The optical scalings (e.g., Eqs. 2, 6, 9, 13) follow from stated approximations such as Rayleigh–Gans–Debye and fractal scaling, not from the conclusion. The paper explicitly flags the MIMICK simulation result that ice mantles seal pores on 10^4–10^5 yr (Sec. 4.5, Fig. 23) and acknowledges in Sec. 5.1.2 that current treatments of porosity are limited; this is an internal scientific tension relevant to correctness, but it is not circularity. No passage exhibits the required specific reduction from output to input, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review adds no new free parameters itself; it adopts fitted porosity values and model assumptions from cited primary studies, several of which are the authors' own. The central narrative, that porosity rises with environmental evolution, depends on treating these environment-specific fitted values as comparable, which is itself an assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Fitted porosity of compact 67P dust family from GIADA = 48% +/- 8%
    Sec. 3.1: Fulle et al. (2016) derived this from GIADA measurements; the review cites it as a Solar System anchor for less-porous particles.
  • Fitted effective refractive index and porosity in AU Mic models = n = 1.03 +/- 0.03, porosity 91-94%
    Sec. 3.3.2: Graham et al. (2007) fitted the real part of the refractive index as a free parameter in Mie+EMA modeling; the review adopts the resulting porosity range as evidence.
  • Fitted porosity range in HL Tau multi-band and polarization modeling = 70-97%
    Sec. 3.3.1: Zhang et al. (2023) fitted porosity by matching mm-wave scattering polarization; the review uses this as its strongest constraint against extreme porosity.
  • Fitted fractal dimension and monomer radius in IM Lup scattered-light modeling = gamma ~ 1.1-2, monomer radius ~ 0.2 micrometer
    Sec. 3.3.1: Tazaki et al. (2023b), a co-author study, fits aggregate structure to the polarized scattering phase function; the review treats this as evidence for fractal aggregates in disks.
  • Assumed 20% porosity in diffuse ISM reference model = 20%
    Sec. 3.2: Hensley and Draine (2023) models adopt 20% porosity to match extinction, polarization, scattering, and emission; the review takes this as the diffuse-ISM baseline.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption IUPAC materials-science definitions of porosity (micro, meso, macro) transfer directly to astrophysical grains
    Sec. 1.2 uses the IUPAC textural definition to frame the entire discussion; if void geometry in a 100 nm aggregate is not equivalent to a bulk catalyst pore system, the classification is a loose analogy.
  • domain assumption Laboratory dust analogues produced by laser ablation, physical vapor deposition, and sputtering represent interstellar and disk grains
    Sec. 4.1 generalizes from nm-scale aggregates condensed on substrates (e.g., Fig. 13, ~90% porosity) to free-floating astrophysical grains; substrate deposition and quenching atmospheres may not replicate radiative and collisional processing in space.
  • domain assumption Hit-and-stick ballistic aggregation (PCA/CCA) dominates dust growth so that compact monomers are the exception
    Sec. 4.2 relies on collision experiments and models (Wurm and Blum 1998; Kataoka et al. 2013) that assume sticking without compaction; the section itself concedes that bouncing, fragmentation, and compaction reduce porosity and remain debated.
  • domain assumption The Rayleigh-Gans-Debye approximation is adequate for interpreting the optical behavior of porous aggregates
    Sec. 2.1 uses RGD (Eqs. 2, 6, 7, 10) to argue aggregates behave like their monomers; Sec. 2.2 notes RGD validity is limited to high porosity and low refractive index, and that EMA introduces significant errors for gamma ~ 2 fractals.
  • domain assumption Dust porosity is separable from grain size distribution and composition in observational fits
    Sec. 1 and Sec. 6 admit the main obstacle is degeneracy ('porosity can be compensated for by a grain size distribution'); the review's statement that observations 'favor' specific porosities assumes the cited models break that degeneracy.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 49410 in / 18980 out tokens · 187758 ms · 2026-08-04T17:59:36.528017+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is cosmic dust porous?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V56MWRHD

@misc{pith2026250910292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is cosmic dust porous?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V56MWRHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10292}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

There is a long-standing discussion in the astrophysical/astrochemical community as to the structure and morphology of dust grains in various astrophysical environments (e.g., interstellar clouds, protostellar envelopes, protoplanetary and debris disks, and the atmospheres of exoplanets). Typical grain models assume a compact dust core which becomes covered in a thick ice mantle in cold dense environments. In contrast, less compact cores are likely to exhibit porosity, leading to a pronounced increase in surface area with concomitant much thinner ice films and higher accessibility to the bare grain surface. Several laboratory experimental and theoretical studies have shown that this type of dust structure can have a marked effect on several physico-chemical processes, including adsorption, desorption, mobility, and reactivity of chemical species. Porous grains are thus thought to likely play a particularly important and wide-ranging astrochemical role. Herein, we clarify what is meant by porosity in relation to grains and grain agglomerates, assess the likely astrochemical effects of porosity and ask whether a fractal/porous structural/morphological description of dust grains is appropriate from an astronomical perspective. We provide evidence for high porosity from laboratory experiments and computational simulations of grains and their growth in various astrophysical environments. Finally, we assess the observational constraints and perspectives on cosmic dust porosity. Overall, our paper discusses the effects of including porosity in dust models and the need to use such models for future astrophysical, astrochemical and astrobiological studies involving surface or solid-state processes.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [8]

    Chem Rev 113(6):4216–4313

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2021.659494 Rimola A, Costa D, Sodupe M, et al (2013) Silica Surface Features and Their Role in the Adsorption of Biomolecules: Computational Modeling and Experiments. Chem Rev 113(6):4216–4313. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr3003054 Rimola A, Ferrero S, Germain A, et al (2021) Computational Surface Modelling of Ices and Minerals ...

    arXiv 2021

  2. [218]

    Core/mantle grains, organic nano- globules, comets and surface chemistry

    https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/234.2.209 Jones AP (2016) Dust evolution, a global view: III. Core/mantle grains, organic nano- globules, comets and surface chemistry. Royal Society Open Science 3(12):160224. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160224 Jones AP, Nuth JA (2011) Dust destruction in the ISM: a re-evaluation of dust lifetimes. A&A 530:A44. https://doi....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [249]

    MNRAS 445(3):2169–2180

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2005.11.041 Mamajek EE, Bell CPM (2014) On the age of theβPictoris moving group. MNRAS 445(3):2169–2180. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1894, arXiv:1409.2737 [astro- ph.SR] Mannel T, Bentley MS, Schmied R, et al (2016) Fractal cometary dust - a window into the early Solar system. MNRAS 462:S304–S311. https://doi.org/10.10...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [354]

    A&A 367(1):355–361

    https://doi.org/10.1029/91RG00688 Mennella V, Munoz Caro GM, Ruiterkamp R, et al (2001) UV photodestruction of CH bonds and the evolution of the 3.4µm feature carrier II.: The case of hydrogenated carbon grains. A&A 367(1):355–361. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20000340 Mennella V, Ciarniello M, Raponi A, et al (2020) Hydroxylated Mg-rich Amorphous Si...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  5. [429]

    ApJ 908(2):153

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2015.06.003 Mori T, Kataoka A (2021) Modeling of the ALMA HL Tau Polarization by Mixture of Grain Alignment and Self-scattering. ApJ 908(2):153. https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/abd08a, arXiv:2012.01735 [astro-ph.EP] Mu˜ noz O, Moreno F, Guirado D, et al (2012) The Amsterdam-Granada Light Scat- tering Database. J Quant S...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [605]

    ApJ 361:260

    https://doi.org/10.1086/509318, arXiv:astro-ph/0609332 [astro-ph] Greenberg JM, Hage JI (1990) From Interstellar Dust to Comets: A Unification of Observational Constraints. ApJ 361:260. https://doi.org/10.1086/169191 Greenberg JM, Pedersen NE, Pedersen JC (1961) Microwave Analog to the Scattering of Light by Nonspherical Particles. J Appl Phys 32(2):233–2...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1990

  7. [862]

    MNRAS 534(4):3713–3733

    https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae040, arXiv:2309.10055 [astro-ph.EP] Lin ZYD, Li ZY, Yang H, et al (2024b) Badminton birdie-like aerodynamic alignment of drifting dust grains by subsonic gaseous flows in protoplane- tary discs. MNRAS 534(4):3713–3733. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae2248, arXiv:2407.10025 [astro-ph.EP] Lissauer JJ, Stevenson DJ (2007) ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  8. [938]

    Nat Astron 5:197

    https://doi.org/10.1086/426679, arXiv:astro-ph/0406403 [astro-ph] Ioppolo S, Fedoseev G, Chuang KJ, et al (2021) A non-energetic mechanism for glycine formation in the interstellar medium. Nat Astron 5:197. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-020-01249-0 Ishizuka S, Kimura Y, Sakon I (2015) In Situ Infrared Measurements of Free-flying Silicate during Condensa...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [1014]

    J Quant Spec Radiat Transf 97(2):161–180

    https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20053212, arXiv:astro-ph/0509376 [astro- ph] Min M, Hovenier JW, Dominik C, et al (2006b) Absorption and scattering properties of arbitrarily shaped particles in the Rayleigh domain. J Quant Spec Radiat Transf 97(2):161–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2005.05.059, arXiv:astro-ph/0504067 [astro-ph] Min M, Waters LBFM,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  10. [1254]

    Light Scattering and Thermal Emission by Primitive Dust Particles in Planetary Systems

    https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20041783 Kimura H, Kolokolova L, Li A, et al (2016) Light Scattering and Thermal Emission by Primitive Dust Particles in Planetary Systems. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1603.03123. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1603.03123, arXiv:1603.03123 [astro-ph.EP] Kimura H, Wada K, Kobayashi H, et al (2020) Is water ice an efficient facili...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.03123 2016

  11. [1322]

    Phys Chem Chem Phys 19(11):7990–7995

    https://doi.org/10.1086/590143 Taj S, Baird D, Rosu-Finsen A, et al (2017) Surface heterogeneity and inhomogeneous broadening of vibrational line profiles. Phys Chem Chem Phys 19(11):7990–7995. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cp07530d Taj S, Rosu-Finsen A, McCoustra MRS (2021) Impact of Surface Heterogeneity on IR Line Profiles of Adsorbed Carbon Monoxide on Mo...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [1518]

    J Chem Phys 131(24):244711

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14420.x Thrower JD, Collings MP, Rutten FJM, et al (2009b) Thermal desorption of C6H6 from surfaces of astrophysical relevance. J Chem Phys 131(24):244711. https://doi. org/10.1063/1.3267634 Tielens A (1989) Dust in Dense Clouds. In: Allamandola LJ, Tielens AGGM (eds) Interstellar Dust, IAU Symposium, vol 135. Kluw...

    arXiv 2009

  13. [1660]

    ApJ 892(2):136

    https://doi.org/10.1086/512121, arXiv:astro-ph/0701321 [astro-ph] Sierra A, Lizano S (2020) Effects of Scattering, Temperature Gradients, and Settling on the Derived Dust Properties of Observed Protoplanetary Disks. ApJ 892(2):136. 102 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab7d32, arXiv:2003.02982 [astro-ph.EP] Sierra A, P´ erez LM, Zhang K, et al (2021) Mole...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [2673]

    ApJ 780(2):180

    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.32.2671 Sabri T, Gavilan L, Jager C, et al (2014) Interstellar Silicate Analogs for Grain-Surface Reaction Experiments: Gas-Phase Condensation and Characterization of the Silicate Dust Grains. ApJ 780(2):180. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/180 Saliba S, Ruch P, Volksen W, et al (2016) Combined influence of pore si...

    arXiv 2014

  15. [8035]

    ApJ 818(1):16

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200802630 Musiolik G, Teiser J, Jankowski T, et al (2016a) Collisions of co ice grains in planet formation. ApJ 818(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/16 Musiolik G, Teiser J, Jankowski T, et al (2016b) Ice grain collisions in comparison: Co , h o, and their mixtures. ApJ 827(1):63. https://doi.org/...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009